Cant see it working, too many ways around it. The payment will just get shifted from club to sponsors etc. There is no way they can stop members of the public going up to players after the game and slipping $500 in their pockets each week. Ive been involved in clubs in Vic country leagues where it wasnt uncommon for wealthy supporters to slip money to players before and after games. You also have business owners employing players on decent wages but the players never even attend. Plenty of legit ways to pay players big $$ and keep the taxman happy

Why would a player then travel 3 hours to play footy for $500 when they can get that 5 minutes from the CBD? All this is going to do is cause some country clubs to go back to losing by 20+ goals wk in wk out and eventually fold, how's that healthy?

Some of you may not have read this recently in the Murray Vallee standard. Will be interesting to hear the feedback as I think James Moore as worded this perfectly and said what a lot of us are thinking.

grasshopper22 wrote:Some of you may not have read this recently in the Murray Vallee standard. Will be interesting to hear the feedback as I think James Moore as worded this perfectly and said what a lot of us are thinking.

Well done James Moore, fantastic letter. Let's just hope the powers-to-be actually have a read of it and take it on board.

I think the SANFL clubs are quick to point the finger but there have been countless times when a good junior of your club heads down to play underage for the zone SANFL club for a few years and then when they're on the brink of getting cut, the SANFL club points them in the direction of a div 1-2. amateur club because that level of football would be better for their "development". Unfortunately, these players are then lost to their "home" clubs unless money is offered to get them back. If the SANFL were more engaging with the country zone clubs, then some of the enticing $$ may not be offered to their league/ressie players.

grasshopper22 wrote:Some of you may not have read this recently in the Murray Vallee standard. Will be interesting to hear the feedback as I think James Moore as worded this perfectly and said what a lot of us are thinking.

Well done James Moore, fantastic letter. Let's just hope the powers-to-be actually have a read of it and take it on board.

I think the SANFL clubs are quick to point the finger but there have been countless times when a good junior of your club heads down to play underage for the zone SANFL club for a few years and then when they're on the brink of getting cut, the SANFL club points them in the direction of a div 1-2. amateur club because that level of football would be better for their "development". Unfortunately, these players are then lost to their "home" clubs unless money is offered to get them back. If the SANFL were more engaging with the country zone clubs, then some of the enticing $$ may not be offered to their league/ressie players.

Good call Gimp .... how many young lads have missed out over the years for a full time League / Ressie spot due to SANFL clubs recruiting average interstate players ? Gets back to how the SANFL treats players and creates a true club culture.

Mr Beefy wrote:On the GSFL thread they are saying a max of $500/game plus petrol money of $1 per km away from the CBD (and return)

This would be good as long as that $1 per km is enough to sway players to travel the extra distance[/quot

$1 per Km, ok then so Browns Well plays at Ramco round trip of about 250km or even Kersbrook to Kangarilla that's another massive hike 160km round trip this will not entice players to many country leagues, there may be a div 10 in the amateurs soon the way its going

Mr Beefy wrote:On the GSFL thread they are saying a max of $500/game plus petrol money of $1 per km away from the CBD (and return)

This would be good as long as that $1 per km is enough to sway players to travel the extra distance[/quot

$1 per Km, ok then so Browns Well plays at Ramco round trip of about 250km or even Kersbrook to Kangarilla that's another massive hike 160km round trip this will not entice players to many country leagues, there may be a div 10 in the amateurs soon the way its going

Mr Beefy wrote:On the GSFL thread they are saying a max of $500/game plus petrol money of $1 per km away from the CBD (and return)

This would be good as long as that $1 per km is enough to sway players to travel the extra distance[/quot

$1 per Km, ok then so Browns Well plays at Ramco round trip of about 250km or even Kersbrook to Kangarilla that's another massive hike 160km round trip this will not entice players to many country leagues, there may be a div 10 in the amateurs soon the way its going

why would someone in the city go to Kangarilla via Kersbrook?

oh so all Kersbrook players live in the city Beefy??? some guys I know that play and get $$$$ live in the northern suburbs like Blakeview for instance so they will got through the hills via Kersbrook to get too Kangarilla obviously you've never done the trip or never played in the Hills Country league

Travel allowance is only second hand info but I don't think the travel allowance would have anything thing to do with the residential address of a player, so if you live at Blakeview and play for Ramco the most you can get paid is $856. $500 + $356 travel (2 x 178kms from CBD). If you live in New York and play for Ramco it's the same formula. It's from club to CBD so it's a simple.

Player payments are a vicious circle... but at the end of the there are mutiple factors to blame:

1. Clubs are willing to pay big $$$$ 2. Players happily put their hand out of excessive payments3. The APPS

1 - The harsh reality is, while clubs are prepared to pay these $ amounts, there will always be a demand, and while I understand the ramifications around clubs not competing in the 'Meat market', the fact still remains, if every club made a stand, this wouldn't be an issue. Why is it still an issue, because clubs don't care about anyone but themselves, and sometime they are killing themselves anyway in their pursuit of success. So all this talk about side deals etc wouldnt be a problem if EVERY club made a stand on principle and stuck to the payment limits. Will this happen, no, and the second ONE club goes outside the boundries, the rest will follow in a heart beat.

Fact still remains, if clubs didnt pay it, problem wouldn't exist!

2 - Now whilst I like the idea of loyalty to your club etc, the generation of today do see things like when I was a kid, so I don't really care if they want to keep swapping clubs to play with mates, moved towns etc etc. Where things have got out of hand is the comfort levels of blokes asking for money. Blokes staying at clubs for a year or two until a better offer comes along etc. Now while money is important to all of us, when blokes are weighing up one club over another for something like $50 difference per game, your kidding yourself young fella. What gets worse now, is blokes going back and forth between clubs they offered me $500 if you give me $550 I'll play for you etc. And asking for sign on fees, your a country footballer, you dont deserve sign on fees, if you were as good as you think you are you wouldn't be playing country footy! But it also haapens at the bottom end, kids 18,19,20 asking for $50 a game ply petrol money.... How about you just get a kick and become a regular A grade player mate, then if the club wishes to reward you then so be it, but at the minute, you should be thanking the club for letting you play there and the opportunity to play A grade footy, not putting your hand out. But again, if you go back to point 1, if clubs are happy to throw it around, would you say no if they offered it to you?

3 - The Point system was put in place to limit player movement, mainly driven by the ametuers worried about blokes goin to the country. In a system that is so slawed as this one and one the ammo's dont actually buy into, all it his done is make their plight worse. Most country clubs had an import rule of some description, relevant to their league and surroundings, that possibly wasn't perfect but workied more often than it didnt. The new points system has dramatically chaged rectruiting 3 ways: a) placing the basic 'points' system creates a value on every player, unfortunately that value is way to uneven. for example, someone at Sturt last year may have played 7 league games, 9 reserves games for the year, effectively making him a 3 point player. Then a young kid, 18 plays back pocket for Sedan-Cambrai last year, pretty average kid but due to depth issues, plays 9 A grade games and 7 B grade games, he is also a 3 point player. What the system is telling you, that a bloke who played nearly half a season at SANFL league level is the same value to a team as a average kid whos realistically a B grader in Hills Country division. b) While the ammo's continue to offer EVERY team 15 points every year no matter what, the APPS is not a one fits all system, and therefor forces country clubs to look for players. Perfect example, Goody Saints, Div 1 champions for 3 or 4 years, every single year they had 15 points to play with, whilst every 'points' player is reduced by 1 each year, meaning the system actively encourages them to continue to recruit (and you don't hear Ammo clubs whinging about that), yet Tanunda 4 flags on the trot and the points system allows them 3 points in the BLG, so providing all their current players are 0 pointer they can recruit 1 bloke, but if they have points players from the previous year, no room for recruiting there. So when country clubs aer limited to the volume of players they cn recruit, they have to make an extra effort to draw said player to their club rather than lose it to someone else, hence good clubs only target the best players available, which brings me to point 3 c) even if every club has the same $ Budget to work with, the points system actively drives up the prices of players without the player actually having to do anything. Lets say an ammo club has $50k to spend as does a country club. Ammo club has 15 points (5x3 point players) so they have on average $10k to spend on each player, then the country club only has 6 points to play with (2x3 point players), yet still has the $50k budget, effectively having an allowance of $25k per player to spend. So while that is really simplified, the APPS system actively allows/encourages the country club to spend more to maximise the value of their 3 point player.

So while i could elaborate further on each point, and I'm happy to if anyone wants to on a certain point, the reality is, evan as little as say 7 years ago, player payments would have only been around half of what they are now, what has changed, the APPS came in, created an uneven meat market, drove player prices up, now it is what it is.